Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

2x580 vs 590

Tags:
  • Nvidia
  • Benchmark
  • Graphics
  • Product
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 1, 2012 11:21:09 AM

Which is better? I cant seem to find any benchmark sites where we can use 2 cards...

More about : 2x580 590

March 1, 2012 11:23:53 AM

I do know that 590s are 2 580s on one PCB?
March 1, 2012 11:56:15 AM

the 2 gtx 580 can beat single gtx 590 easily because i'm currently using sli gtx 580 with 2500k and performing outstanding without any issue's and now i'm going to upgrade crossfire HD 7970.

get 2 gtx 580.
Related resources
a b Î Nvidia
March 1, 2012 12:24:09 PM

Wait xtreme, your telling him 2 GTX 580's beat a 590 because you are using a 2 GTX 580's.

Now to answer the question. there are basically both the same. But the 590 is a cheaper card to snag than getting two GTX 580s. I think you should get the 590. Its plenty of power for the next year to come. I havn't used either of the setups. I use two individual GTX 560 ti's in SLI. it beats 1 580 from what i have seen. but however comparing to the GTX 590, its only about 75% close to a 590. the 590 is a better priced option to get the closest thing to 2x GTX 580's
March 1, 2012 12:32:12 PM

They're not basically the same... they're the same in concept but definitely not in execution and performance. GTX 580 SLI is substantially better than the GTX 590, since the 590 is underclocked. My OC'd 7970 gets dangerously close to GTX 590 performance and will even beat it in some tests (like 3dmark11, unigine)... it does not do that to GTX 580 SLI numbers.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/gefor...
March 1, 2012 12:57:52 PM

gxavier38 said:
I do know that 590s are 2 580s on one PCB?


The 590 is two de-powered 570's

Idk where the article is but if I'm not mistaken you can find where Nvidia actually states this.

I had the cash to get a 590....I was dead set on it too. More I read and weighed everything out I went with 3GB 580 by EVGA. The duall processor would be pretty nice to have for scaling and yeah two 590's would be pretty sweet but think about this

1)BF3 is if I'm not mistaken the most graphics intensive game. SLI is the only way to TRULY max it out (EVERY setting maxed) and 590 does a good job but my 580 makes it look pretty amazing as is and I saved about $200 (4xmsaa only thing not maxed). Yeah you'll pay less for one 590 but it doesn't blow the 580 completely out of the water on its own. Does it justify that much of an increase? IMAO hell no

2) How much longer before that card begins to depreciate? Radeon just released the newest batch of their series and Nvidia isn't far behind I dont imagine. A 590 is going to hold its place even after the newest series but a 580 is too and SLI two of them and I doubt you could be dissatisfied by that.

Justify the cost is my advice.....Is it REALLY that much better......If someone has had both I'd love to hear an opinion but that's my 2 cents
March 1, 2012 1:13:11 PM

Mister Gray said:
The 590 is two de-powered 570's

Idk where the article is but if I'm not mistaken you can find where Nvidia actually states this.

I had the cash to get a 590....I was dead set on it too. More I read and weighed everything out I went with 3GB 580 by EVGA. The duall processor would be pretty nice to have for scaling and yeah two 590's would be pretty sweet but think about this

1)BF3 is if I'm not mistaken the most graphics intensive game. SLI is the only way to TRULY max it out (EVERY setting maxed) and 590 does a good job but my 580 makes it look pretty amazing as is and I saved about $200 (4xmsaa only thing not maxed). Yeah you'll pay less for one 590 but it doesn't blow the 580 completely out of the water on its own. Does it justify that much of an increase? IMAO hell no

2) How much longer before that card begins to depreciate? Radeon just released the newest batch of their series and Nvidia isn't far behind I dont imagine. A 590 is going to hold its place even after the newest series but a 580 is too and SLI two of them and I doubt you could be dissatisfied by that.

Justify the cost is my advice.....Is it REALLY that much better......If someone has had both I'd love to hear an opinion but that's my 2 cents


1) Fairly certain from Toms' review (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-590-dua...) that the 590 is just underclocked 580s in SLI, not 570s.

2) My 7970 TRULY maxes out BF3 perfectly smoothly at 1080p, so no - SLI is not the only way to do that anymore.

3) See Toms' review above... the 590 blows a single 580 out of the water... it's at least 50-60% faster than a single 580.

There are things a single GTX 580 can't do very smoothly. A single GTX 580 makes everything playable maxed out 1080p, but you need the extra power of an OC'd 7970, a 590, an 560ti+ SLI, etc to make everything smooth TRULY maxed out...
a c 87 Î Nvidia
March 1, 2012 1:41:40 PM

Based upon Guru3D's game test suite.....(COD-MW, Bad Company 2, Dirt 2, Far Cry 2, Metro 2033, Dawn of Discovery, Crysis Warhead.).


Two 900 Mhz 560 Ti's @ $410 will get ya 862 fps at a cost of $ 0.48 per frame

Two 570's @ $680 will get ya 873 fps at a cost of $ 0.78 per frame

Two 580's @ $1,000 will get ya 953 fps at a cost of $ 1.05 per frame

One 590 @ $750 will get ya 881 fps at a cost of $ 0.85 per frame

The 590 gets ya 19 more fps than the twin 900 Mhz 560 Ti's for an extra investment of $340.

The 560 Ti's are factory overclocked by 10% .... they can be further OC'd to 25 - 30% over the reference speed .... 1070 is highest I have seen, I usually do 1020 (25%)

http://www.pureoverclock.com/review.php?id=1201&page=17

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=E...

Twin 580's get ya 8% more performance than the 590 but, it costs ya $250 more

Twin 580's get ya 10% more performance than the twin 560's but, it costs ya $590 more

A 7970 gets ya 78% of the performance of the twin 560's and it costs ya $140 more

Can't give ya numbers on 7970's in CF as there were issues with 4 of the games in the test suite. This should be resolved as soon as drivers get tweaked to handle these issues.
March 1, 2012 2:00:03 PM

JackNaylorPE said:
Based upon Guru3D's game test suite.....(COD-MW, Bad Company 2, Dirt 2, Far Cry 2, Metro 2033, Dawn of Discovery, Crysis Warhead.).


Two 900 Mhz 560 Ti's @ $410 will get ya 862 fps at a cost of $ 0.48 per frame

Two 570's @ $680 will get ya 873 fps at a cost of $ 0.78 per frame

Two 580's @ $1,000 will get ya 953 fps at a cost of $ 1.05 per frame

One 590 @ $750 will get ya 881 fps at a cost of $ 0.85 per frame

The 590 gets ya 19 more fps than the twin 900 Mhz 560 Ti's for an extra investment of $340.

The 560 Ti's are factory overclocked by 10% .... they can be further OC'd to 25 - 30% over the reference speed .... 1070 is highest I have seen, I usually do 1020 (25%)

http://www.pureoverclock.com/review.php?id=1201&page=17

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=E...

Twin 580's get ya 8% more performance than the 590 but, it costs ya $250 more

Twin 580's get ya 10% more performance than the twin 560's but, it costs ya $590 more

A 7970 gets ya 78% of the performance of the twin 560's and it costs ya $140 more

Can't give ya numbers on 7970's in CF as there were issues with 4 of the games in the test suite. This should be resolved as soon as drivers get tweaked to handle these issues.


Should be "Dr. JackNaylorPE" if you ask me. Good stuff.

Now, id' REALLY love to see those same exact comparisons on an LGA 775 motherboard with a Q9650 at the helm and then a Core i7 920 as well to see the CPU difference...
March 1, 2012 2:00:04 PM

I think I'm gonna just start copy-pasting this response every time I see Jack's post until he starts being more honest in his numbers/methodology.

You compare an overclocked setup to non-overclocked cards. Let's change that to be more honest, shall we?

Comparing a 7970 to 560ti SLI (both overclocked) using your methodology results in the following (1920x1200):

*Note, for numbers where guru3d didn't test the 560ti SLI OC, I have increased those numbers by the % of their OC.

Game - (7970 OC / 560TI SLI OC)
Modern Warfare 2 - (177 / 224)
Far Cry 2 - (119 / 155)
Anno 1404 - (143 / 125)
Metro 2033 - (49 / 47)
Battlefield: Bad Company 2 - (88 / 102)
3dmark Vantage [GPU score] - (34519 / 34952)
3dmark11 - (P9138 / P8392)

Now, to do a comparison of the cards, the proper way to compare is NOT to sum up total frames and compare. Rather, it is to take the ratio of each test and average the ratios: this results in equal and proportional weighting of each test, rather than weighting things heavily towards the tests with the highest framerates. In other words, the proper comparison formula is thus:
(((177/224)+(119/155)+(143/125)+(49/47)+(88/102)+(34519/34952)+(9138/8392))/7)*100

This gives you a ratio of 7970 OC : 560ti SLI OC performance, and the number you get is 95.5%.

In other words, using this methodology a 7970 OC gives you 95.5% of the performance of a 560ti SLI OC setup for 34% more money.

Now, some further things to consider:

The 7970 is known to perform relatively poorly in DX9 games. For example, a stock GTX 580 beats a stock 7970 in Far Cry 2. The 7970 is also known for example to do better in dx11 Crysis 2 than dx9 Crysis 2. This suggests that the 7970 will perform better in newer titles rather than older titles which make up the bulk of this test. Along with the 3dmark11 numbers, it is highly probably that going forward the 7970 OC will actually outperform the 560ti SLI OC. Both setups are complete overkill for almost any DX9 game, so this should decrease the meaningfulness of something like the MW2 and Far Cry 2 tests in my opinion.

TL, DR --> Jack posts 560ti evangelism all over these forums which is misleading at best even using his own methodology. The 560ti SLI does offer better value than a 7970, but not to anywhere near the extent he suggests. The 560ti SLI does not necessarily offer better performance than the 7970, and is better seen as trading blows with it depending on what games you are interested in playing.

Also, just like the 560ti cards can be overclocked further, so too can the 7970s (or any other card you choose to do this comparison with). You'd have to revise his post for each particular comparison, since he applies the same flawed methodology to all of them in order to make 560ti SLI look like the only setup worth getting.
March 1, 2012 2:15:12 PM

You also have to look at the disadvantages of SLI or CF. More power, more heat, and more noise. If you can not wait get a best single solution card out there( not counting 590 or 6990 they are way too much noisy). So for now the best single card solution is 7970. If you are willing to wait for Kepler just wait and see.
March 1, 2012 9:08:14 PM

Is the 7970 capable of running bf3 on Ultra? Im just asking, this isnt so important. High is enough for me.
March 1, 2012 10:12:51 PM

gxavier38 said:
Is the 7970 capable of running bf3 on Ultra? Im just asking, this isnt so important. High is enough for me.


A GTX580 is more than enough on Ultra at 1080P. I usually sit on about 50 FPS during intensive scenes. I think it was 50? I could be wrong though :p 

Keep in mind, my 580 has roughly a 20% overclock applied to it.
a c 87 Î Nvidia
March 1, 2012 10:21:31 PM

Quote:
i think I'm gonna just start copy-pasting this response every time I see Jack's post until he starts being more honest in his numbers/methodology. You compare an overclocked setup to non-overclocked cards. Let's change that to be more honest, shall we?


No, I included a comparison of two cards as tested "outta the box". What's dishonest ? .... the fact that the 560 Ti's are factory overclocked is clearly stated. The point is both cards are retail products untouched by user or reviewer's hands. As there was no data on factory overclocked 590's and factory overclocked 7970's I can't very well post that data, now can I ?????

Quote:
In other words, using this methodology a 7970 OC gives you 95.5% of the performance of a 560ti SLI OC setup for 34% more money.


I don't bother much with methodology's that involve benchmarks cause most users don't play benchmarks, so to be useful, I like to stay in the real world of playing games to judge game performance. Take out the synthetic benchies and your 95% takes a big nosedive.

But let's that be set that aside for a moment and takes all your postulations as fact..... In other words, your claim is that, again assuming all your statements to be correct (more on that later) I can get 95% of the performance with a 7970 and I get to pay and extra 34% for the pleasure of being 5 % slower !!!!!!

What's ya point ???? Using your own faulty data, why would I wanna pay an extra 34% to go slower ??????

Excuse me for not being impressed. Now let's gets to the faults in your claims.

Your reference is not an "out of the box" comparison, mine is. Your published reference states:

Quote:
As you can see after trying and testing significantly, we simply could max out the slider. That's 1125 MHz on the core (925 = default)


That's not a factory overclock,...that's a reviewer OC. Again, ya wanna talk reviewer OC, ya gotta add 20% to all the factory overclocked 560 Ti numbers. My numbers are at the 900 Mhz meager factory OC.....the card is capable of 1070 Mhz......ya wanna talk apples and apples, add 20% more to the 560 Ti's numbers.

http://www.pureoverclock.com/review.php?id=1201&page=17

So after claiming that I was dishonest for comparing exactly what I said I was comparing, you responded by comparing a meager factory overclock with full guaranteed performance with a reviewer's overclock who maxed out just one of the cards in the comparison and left the other at "factory settings". That's your definition of honest ??????

So yes, let's make you be as honest as I was..... I included published benchmarks of a factory overclocked 560 Ti card "outta the box" with a 7970 "outta the box"....exactly what I stated. You stated that the "calculated" OC's were arrived at by multiplying by the 10% factory OC .... yet you dishonestly didn't apply a factory overclock to the 7970's numbers, you used the "max overclock" that the reviewer could get. Why didn't you apply a reviewer's max overclock ?????

So let's look again at your numbers, corrected to use a reviewer's max OC for both cards:

Game - (7970 OC / 560TI SLI OC)
Modern Warfare 2 - (177 / 224) .... 200 x 1070 / 820 = 261 not 224 ... a 47% advantage
Far Cry 2 - (119 / 155) .... 141 x 1070 / 820 = 184 not 155 .... ... a 55% advantage
Anno 1404 - (143 / 125).... 115 x 1070 / 820 = 150 not 125 ... a 5% advantage
Metro 2033 - (49 / 47) ..... 47 x 1070 / 820 = 61 not 47 ... a 24% advantage
Battlefield: Bad Company 2 - (88 / 102) ..... 102 x 1070 / 820 = 133 not 102 ... a 51% advantage

Total 576 fps for the Reviewer Overclocked 7970 and 789 fps for the reviewer overclocked 560 Ti's. That's a 37% advantage to the 560 Ti's using my method.

Using your method since you stated mine is not representative ..... not exactly a big spread there .... Average % advantage = 36.4 % .... a difference of 0.6 % In conclusion, using your own methods, but using max reviewer OC's on both cards from the published sources provided, the 7970 is 73% as fast as the twin 560 Ti's.....and ya get the priviledge pay an extra $140 to go 73 % as fast.

Just to be clear, this is not an "nVidia versus AMD" thing..... it's a "buying the most powerful single GPU card versus two mid range cards thing." Twin 6870's "outta the box" get 701 fps in Guri3D game test suite and beat the 7970 "outta the box" by 26 fps....and they do it for $300 ..... $250 less than the 7970.....104 % of the performance for 54% of the price.
a c 87 Î Nvidia
March 1, 2012 10:38:39 PM

maxinexus said:
You also have to look at the disadvantages of SLI or CF. More power, more heat, and more noise. If you can not wait get a best single solution card out there( not counting 590 or 6990 they are way too much noisy). So for now the best single card solution is 7970. If you are willing to wait for Kepler just wait and see.


I was in that camp until about 18 months ago..... now I just won't pay the single GPU premium....the vendors have realized how much peeps are willing to pay for bragging rights and they are stuck because they can't price the mid ranged cards any higher or lose the market. Noise and heat is a complete non issue with the factory OC'd cards big coolers, fan profiles and a decent case. Yes they use more power..... but not so much that ya gonna worry about the power bill

Using this:

http://extreme.outervision.com/PSUEngine

I'm showing 45 watts more power consumption for the twin 560's versus the 580.

45 watts x 24 hrs per week x 52 weeks per year x 3 years x 0.10 / kw-hr / 1000 watts per kw = $16.85

580 costs $500, twin 560's $410 ..... I'm ahead $73.15

nVidia states the TDP as being 244 watts for the 580 versus 170 x 2 = 340 for the 560 Ti's..... that's pushed up due to the 560's greater overclock ability.

But even using the 96 watts .... that's $35.94 over 3 years.... still way way less than the price premium ya pay buying the 580.....and that's also about 4 times the amount of gaming I can get in in any given week.
a b Î Nvidia
March 1, 2012 10:42:31 PM

seeing how it's already March and new cards will be coming out relatively soon I wouldn't buy either one of those cards. From information on a few different spots on the web you should be able to get 580 performance for much less.

If I had to choose I would go for the 2 card performance. The 590 has been retarded in performance so it would run. Plain and simple.
March 1, 2012 10:48:46 PM

O wait so now we're talking about the max OC you've ever seen on a 560ti vs a fairly common OC on a 7970? Why not use 1250-1300 MHz OC on the 7970? Oh that's right, because you're only interested in the half of the story that makes your own point look good. :non: 

Also, the % in my original post comes out to 92% without the synthetics... a far cry from your original claims and the nosedive is not as strong as you suggest when taking it out (the reason I left it in was to show how weak the 560ti SLI setup is in DX11 compared to the 7970). Perhaps that will never transform to real world performance, who knows? But it's interesting enough to include. Heck, if we're gonna include old games that nobody buys $400+ worth of GPU to play, we might as well include benchmarks.

Also never implied it's an nvidia vs amd thing... its a you-using-flawed-methodology-to-make-560ti SLI-look-better-than-it-really-is thing. Stop being a tool. I'm not interested in changing your mind, that's clearly not possible or you wouldn't run all over the forums posting this misleading crap. I just wanted to demonstrate to others how you skew numbers to make a particular point. I think I've done that, so I'll leave things where they are and let intelligent folks make up their own minds (something your wonderful "advice" rarely has room for I might add).

:edit: It's worth noting (and I stated this above) that in reality I support your point that 560ti SLI offers much better value than the 7970, I just can't stand your misleading methodology used to skew the results as far in the favor of the 560ti SLI setup as you can. Their performance advantage is not anywhere near what you tend to claim vs the 7970 or vs any other card. I just picked the 7970 because I have it and am most familiar with its benchmarks and how often it actually can BEAT a 560ti SLI setup.

:edit 2: Dunno if this was an oversight on your part or another example of skewing data, but you multiplied the 560ti SLI numbers by 1070/820 when the numbers were already for 560ti cards clocked to 925 (and so should have been multiplied by 1070/925). - edit 3 think you got this right on all of them except maybe Metro so nevermind. Doesn't change the fact that you should be also multiplying the 7970 #s by about 1250~1300/1125, which is basically gonna get you right back to my original numbers.
March 2, 2012 6:22:36 AM

Damn, this is confusing...
March 2, 2012 12:35:26 PM

freind if you take my advice then straightly get 2 gtx 580 they are incredible i used them..
March 2, 2012 1:14:37 PM

GTX 590 user here.

Did a lot of research before making my purchase and I was also torn between the two options.



GTX 590 is two underclocked 580's.

On a price to performance ratio (determined from average benchmarks) the GTX 590 is superior. The big factor here, is that a 590 costs let's say $750, while 2 x 580's cost $1050.


You've got to draw the line somewhere with amount you'll pay. Otherwise we'd all be playing with SLI ASUS ROG MARS II
March 2, 2012 1:22:40 PM

Gotta note at this point that an overclocked 7970 (or overclocked 560ti SLI... or 6950 CF...) will get very close to a GTX 590 and even occasionally beat it for a good deal less money... IMO if you have more than $600 you want to spend on graphics cards you should be getting 2 7950s or 2 GTX 580s (assuming you get the GTX 580s for $450 or less)
March 3, 2012 12:24:59 PM

How about one 590 liquid cooled and OCd? That would be epic... I've decided that waiting for Kepler anyway...
March 3, 2012 3:19:48 PM

yeah, kepler is good idea then...
March 4, 2012 10:13:57 AM

So how good exactly is the 7950 compared to the 580, 590 and 7970? How does it compare when overclocked or 2x 580?
March 4, 2012 10:14:25 AM

Btw I'm jealous of the Mars II owners...
March 4, 2012 10:21:32 AM

hd 7950 can beat gtx 580 but not gtx 590.
March 4, 2012 12:14:05 PM

Will two beat the 590?
Price per performance, 7950, 7970 or 580 or 590?
March 4, 2012 12:52:05 PM

2 7950s will easily beat a 590

Your best price/performance option of those is 7950(s) with a high overclock... 40-50% overclocks on the 7950 are not uncommon.
March 4, 2012 5:27:08 PM

Get 2 580's.
March 5, 2012 5:22:02 AM

yes, 2x hd 7950 beat up gtx 590 by thier stock.
March 5, 2012 6:59:40 AM

Sorry to ask so much, just cant make up my mind... 2X 580 vs 7950, price per performance. Note: will use water cooling, so overclock will be beast.
March 5, 2012 7:00:20 AM

I meant 2x 580 vx 2x 7950 p/p
a b Î Nvidia
March 5, 2012 7:33:02 AM

7950's will outperform the 580's. Though have you considered getting a 580 and water cooling it? Then you can overclock it a ton because it is water cooled.
March 5, 2012 7:49:27 AM

So which overclocks better? I'm using this for another build, since I'm using Kepler GPU's for my main PC.
a b Î Nvidia
March 5, 2012 7:50:44 AM

Watercooled 7950 will overclock better.
March 5, 2012 8:00:16 AM

I guess I'm going with 7950 then. It overclocks nice and is good on P/P? great!
March 5, 2012 12:19:59 PM

on water I'd expect a 50% overclock to be reasonable on the 7950, unless you just get a dud card (which can always happen)... that's wayyyyyyy more overclocking than you'd get out of a GTX 580
March 5, 2012 3:04:17 PM

2x 7950's scale very nicely in performance. Perhaps the next-gen Nvidia cards will also.


Personally I believe with conviction that Nvidia has superior hardware & drivers - and until I see a substantial shift, will continue to buy Nvidia.
March 5, 2012 3:15:06 PM

Also wanted to add, proceed with caution when doing OC. I personally don't put many eggs in that basket, and like to have raw power without an OC.

I've seen firsthand with a couple AMD cards, most recently my last 6950, that any overclock actually reduced quantitative performance. I figured out at the end of the day that even though I boosted power output to the card too, the AMD power throttling function would kick in causing momentary stuttering in FPS. And my PSU was good so I knew that wasn't the issue.

Not sure if this problem is exclusive to certain cards or AMD cards, but I know some others have encountered it too. Either way I don't bank on overclocking GPU's for that reason.
March 5, 2012 6:23:47 PM

jk47 said:
2x 7950's scale very nicely in performance. Perhaps the next-gen Nvidia cards will also.


Personally I believe with conviction that Nvidia has superior hardware & drivers - and until I see a substantial shift, will continue to buy Nvidia.


I completely agree with you on buying nvidia cards.
March 6, 2012 8:42:43 AM

BigMack70 said:
on water I'd expect a 50% overclock to be reasonable on the 7950, unless you just get a dud card (which can always happen)... that's wayyyyyyy more overclocking than you'd get out of a GTX 580

Whats a dud card? sorry for my noobishness
March 6, 2012 11:26:40 AM

Just a card that won't overclock well. Overclocking is never a guarantee and there will always be some cards that just don't overclock all that great compared to others. For example, with the temperatures I'm able to keep on my 7970, I think that a 1200 MHz OC should be pretty easily achievable, but my card doesn't respond well to voltage tweaking and isn't stable an inch over 1150 - that's just the luck of the draw. Sometimes you get a card that is amazing for overclocking and sometimes you don't.

I wouldn't consider mine a 'dud' - but if you got a 7970 that wouldn't OC over 1000 MHz, for example, I'd say that's a dud since 1125/1575 seems to be a very standard overclock that the card can hit.
March 7, 2012 5:27:08 AM

Ah, ok. This is pretty confusing. Basically from your advices the 7950 is the best money can buy right now? Alright then. Any further opinions still appreciated.
March 7, 2012 11:05:31 AM

Based on what you've said in this thread, I think that 2 7950s is by far the best use of your money.

From a value perspective, they won't have quite as good a price/performance ratio as 2 midrange cards (e.g., 2 560ti cards), but they will offer much better performance, especially assuming they overclock as well as average 7950s seem to be doing.
March 7, 2012 11:18:40 AM

Is there a guide for installing water-cooling blocks that is noob friendly? I haven't found any factory installed ones yet...
March 7, 2012 11:39:46 AM

yes, there are alots of guide.
!